Academic

Alexander & Schauer on Rules of Recognition & Acceptance

By Lawrence Solum

Larry Alexander and Frederick Schauer (University of San Diego School of Law and Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government) have posted Rules of Recognition, Constitutional Controversies, and the Dizzying Dependence of Law on Acceptance (The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution (Matthew Adler & Kenneth Himma, eds., Oxford University Press 2009)) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In this essay we take up the question of the non-legal foundations of any legal system, and in particular H.L.A. Hart's notion of the ultimate rule of recognition, the master rule that pedigrees the other rules governing what officials and citizens are legally obligated to do. Initially, we shall raise but not necessarily resolve several questions about Hart's own account of the rule of recognition. But even though we leave those questions largely unresolved, we shall come away from this discussion with a sufficiently firm grasp of the idea of a rule of recognition to proceed to the second part of the essay. In that part we look at the United States Constitution - and the practices that have developed regarding its interpretation and enforcement - through the lens of the idea of an ultimate rule of recognition. And when we do so, we shall encounter some foundational questions about constitutional law and interpretation: Does the rule of recognition in the American legal system change over time, and if so, how does this occur? Has the Constitution itself changed other than by organic processes - processes prescribed by the Constitution itself - and, if so, how? If interpreters employ different interpretive methodologies in interpreting the Constitution, is there one constitution, or are there several (overlapping) constitutions? And if the latter, how is stability achieved? If the Supreme Court (or some other governmental body with final interpretive authority) misinterprets the Constitution, what is the legal status of such a misinterpretation, and why? And finally, given that one function of a constitution is to entrench the "rules of the game," and given that any entrenched rule will suffer from over- and under-inclusiveness with respect to its background purposes, how is it possible for officials and citizens to accept as binding the ultimate rule of recognition and the constitutional and subconstitutional rules it pedigrees?

Highly recommended!

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on August 20, 2008 (boomark / email).